ZetaX

Ok, I give up. If you really want to keep iterating the same triviality, then do so. But it still won't carry any weight or meaning. You could as well state that the sky is blue, therefore nuclear power is best.

By again and again and again stating the same (obviously true) thing: that nuclear power creates the most energy from the least mass/atoms/reactions. And every time you didn't even try to explain why this is relevant.

You are repeating yourself. Again. As I already said: that simply means nothing. It is an arbitrary measure you introduced that is, at least not by what has been stated, related to anything we are interested in. If you want to give it meaning, you will have to explain why we should care about it.

If you reread my previous post(s) you will see that I nowhere disagreed with your actual conclusion. But: This is a bad way of measuring things and/or of saying what you intended. It is arbitrary as there is no reason that "energy per reaction" is in any way related to desirability. Hence the non-serious examples from my last post.

I am quite sure you wanted to say something else there. Otherwise I offer that coal plants are the safest and most efficient in terms of energy per burning a piece of coal, or solar ones in terms of converting sunlight

"The basic principle hasn't changed" is a very bad argument; it's like saying that cars are still the same after a hundred years (or several millenia, if you call a quadriga a "car"). Here's the scientific reason: The only two things that remained the same are "burning the coal" (which is inherently what the coal plant is about) and "turning heated fluid/gas into electric energy" (which also is part of the definition); almost everything else changed over time. We also added ways to directly use residual thermal energy, e.g. to heat houses. In the end, we cannot become much better than that because thermodynamics says so, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot's_theorem_%28thermodynamics%29 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency. The latter also gives numbers: a good modern coal plant peaks at 46% efficiency fr conversion into electrical energy, while the theoretical optimum (in this case of a specific gasoline engine, be invited to get the actual ones for coal) is at 73%. Thus doubling efficiency is already proven to be impossible at that step. But lets go even further: those 73% are for the conversion into mechanical energy, i.e. turning a shaft via a turbine; the second stage of conversion into electrical energy is not even factored into it. Furthermore, the 46% above do not account for using the residual heat, i.e. the numbers are actually even better if that happens. And lastly, my previous point still stands: if it were easy (read as: if a trillion dollar are enough to get this done) then we would probably just do it. The coal plants surely have no interest in wasting coal, i.e. money.

We know how to prevent (most of) it: good filters. Which cost money, and thus it again turns into a political thing. And it is known to be simply impossible to get twice the energy per coal than a modern power plant does. Do you really think that those multi-billion corporations wouldn't spend tons of money to get twice the power for the same cost? And how should oil companies even be behind coal plants spewing mercury? What would they ever gain from that except bad publicity at no additional income? There are not many who spend their time on finding out what mercury does to the human body (this is mostly understood anyway), so your argument also is a strawman.

There is no foreseeable future where solar or wind will be the base load. Thus this business will be open for quite some time to come. Pricing electricity is not just "give me 1KWh, I give you $0.10"; instead, the price varies extremely throughout the day and the year (it goes as far as there even being negative prices for short times). So your nuclear power plant will probably not bring much money during a sunny day of summer, but you can be quite sure that it will pay off during a cloudy day in winter.

And how should we figure out what exactly causes the problem, and what consequences things have, without doing exactly that research? Do you expect that "being more efficient" is totally unrelated or what? Anyway, we know pretty well how to solve the problems already (with there surely being possible improvements). It's more a matter of getting it done, especially politically. This statement is just ridiculous. Apart from the already mentioned falsehoods, we did not spend those million years causing CO2 in amounts never seen before. That's more like a hundred years only.

So this is your response after someone demonstrated how blatantly wrong your last claim on volcanoes was? I recommend starting to consider that your position is just outright wrong. If you come up with numbers that are off by a factor of 100 or more, and after that being pointed out claim that everyone who researches this is a moron (again without any foundation in science, reality or argument), then the problem is pretty definitely found within you, not those "morons". And that's even before we consider if the scientific claims of those "morons" are actuially correct, but purely based on how wrong your were.

The symbols are there for readability, not for being complicated. Sure, one could (and as soon as technology exists should) create hyperlinked texts that allow this all the way down. But you are underestimating the amount of work this would take with the currently existing technology. Maybe ten more years or so before this becomes somewhat practicable, and then another ten or more until all the already existing things are encoded that way. That is probably optimistic now. And a huge amount of mathematics is not just a bunch of rules and then doing simplifications usingformulas. If math were that straightforward we would have automatic theorem proofers since the 80s. Heck, we are not even close to something that can automatically compare formulas. We might never be: it is an open problem if there exists an algorithm that decides if two functions only using rationals, +, -, ·, /, exp, i, log are actually the same function; even worse, if you add in the absolute value, then it is already known to be algorithmically impossible! (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson's_theorem) And even if we would have such an algorithm, it would still be a very long way to arbitrary theorems. I also doubt that the time needed for transitioning into another field is cut shorter in a measurable way. The time goes mostly into learning and understanding the _concepts_, not the formulas. If you were to know every single theorem's statements in all of mathematics, but nothing else, every working mathematician would outclass you in solving a given problem of his field, despite he is probably not even knowing all the theorems from his own field of expertise. That's also why such simplifications would not work for school: teaching math in the end has to be about those concepts. If we would only require better calculators there would be no need for any mathematics at school at all.

Universe is still defined as the entirety of what can be theoretically perceived (or a similiar definition). For this time outside (space)time to be relevant it needs to have an effect, however small. If it does not, there is no reason to assume it exists and not, say, that the universe is a unicorn's tear.

Why¿ Sure, we don't know that we have, but we also don't know that we do not have them. We simply know nothing here. Also, you don't need a probability distribution, but only a set (well, not even that, but I won't go that much into mathematics now). I find it really annoying that those here that do not know higher mathematics need examples and allegories (instead of learning it the proper way), but then get very nitpicky about details (e.g. now taking the lottery example into stochastics, or taking the north pole one into geography). Guys, that's not going to work. Either believe that those that deal with this stuff on a daily basis are not just bull....ting you, or learn it yourself. Everything else would be pointless. - - - Updated - - - "Differential geometry" isn't even a theory in physics. It's a mathematical theory that can be used to describe general relativity (and thus, you would be hard-pressed to claim that relativity could exist without Differential Geometry); it could also be used to describe things that are very definitely not physics. Stop missusing the terminology please. That's all what my post addressing you was about.

There simply has to be no reason for this particular set. It's like asking the lottery winner why him and not his neighbour. It simply happened and we are now there observing it. The only thing truly necessary for that was "to buy the lottery ticket", which in this case means that we are talking about a universe that can bringt forth sufficiently intelligent life. Differential Geometry is pure mathematics and therefore much more than a hypothesis. Doubting it is akin to doubting that 1+1=2 (which by the way is the definition of 2) or that logic itself applies; in which case you could just assume that anything happens, because screw logic! What you probably wanted to say is that relativity is a hypothesis, but that is also wrong: we have lots of evidence for it. In regard to causility, I recommend looking up the most recent (or any?) FTL thread here; it was already explained there that causaility is not a necessity, but only something we are used to. Claims that "there has to be something before the big bang" are in the end an argument from ignorance: one simply thinks there is always a "before" and that everything exists inside "something". But there is no evidence for this. The geometry of spacetime surely doesn't need such things (and forget whatever bad analogy of the universe you have; learn some differential geometry if you really want to understand this). It is perfecly fine to ask ourselves how the universe might have started, or maybe more precisely how it came to be as an entity. But to expect meaningful answers at a point in our history where we only knew relativity for a hundred years is foolish.

Please fix your units.

That's not how it works. You would very definitely see effects of that.

That will be easy. By the way, if you do it that way, then you have to deal with higher pressures than with the real versions. And the problem how that black hole stays in the center.

I think you wanted to address cicatrix there. At least you quoted him and I did not say anything that you seem to respond to in that part of your post. - - - Updated - - - No, time travel does not rearrange matter at a distance or in any other way (sans the travelers themselves). It simply goes to an earlier point where your state of mind was different, it then continues to rearrange itself in a different way due to different circumstances. No energy involved. Philosophically, this is quite complex, but from the energetic point of view it is simple.

K^2 has already fully explained that this is not what he describes and not what is happening. Please read his post where described the time traveling methods again instead of just wildly interpreting things. He definitely did not say what you attribute to him. - - - Updated - - - That's not how it works. Already well-established facts and pure mathematics/logic imply that FTL can happen only if time travel can happen, too. If you think time travel is impossible, fine, but then FTL is impossible as well.

I would prefer if you would answer in regard to the actual point, instead of being nitpicky about my choice of word "collapse". Feel free to read it as "break apart", "stops working" or similiar things instead.

No, you simple create a bubble geometry that collapses by itself after a fixed distance.

You are claiming that your own intuition is an objectively obvious fact, while it clearly isn't. You are confusing your oppinions with universal truths here. Pointing to farmers (which generally have no clue about these topics and thus are neither experts nor relevant) is not strengthening your claim even a bit; it actually weakens it, as it creates the impression that your best argument is to point to the oppinion of an uneducated guy on the fields.

And heat up.

That's not how it works. Surface gravity is proportional to M/r², M being the planet's mass and r being it's radius. As Kerbin is smaller than Earth, you need less mass for the same surface acceleration due to gravity. Now assuming uniform density d one easily sees that mass is proportional to d·r³, thus for surface gravity is proportional to d·r. As Kerbin is 1/10-th the radius of Earth we need 10 times the density to again get the same surface gravity. - - - Updated - - - Don't forget about Bismuth

Blast furnaces are normally well above the temperatures at which you consider a nuclear recator "safe". Even a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-high-temperature_reactor could maybe reach 1000°C, which would not work for, say, iron. Some other things are prohibited by the dangers of radiation leaking and/or induced radiation. But I don't know for sure how it would be for the seawater (yet I think that places that need it are often those that do not have access to nuclear technology).